The Stimulus Seems to have failed

Oh right...woo.
Forgive me for thinking you had some evidence.

Again, as far as I can see the methodologies behind the deflator in both the US and the UK are the same and have been for long enough to show up BeAChoosers complaining about it now as mere partisanship (which is no great surprise, it has to be said).
I'm seeing no evidence that your point of view on the deflator is inconsistent with John William's comments.

Something that's been around for 4 or 10 years unchanged does not have to be right.
 
I'm seeing no evidence that your point of view on the deflator is inconsistent with John William's comments.

Something that's been around for 4 or 10 years unchanged does not have to be right.

Which is utterly irrelevant.
Or did you miss the bit where the sole reason for my posting about it was to ask BeAChooser why he only chose now to point out his perceived discrepancy.

My point, if you bother to look back, was not about you but about BeAChooser and his apparent gripes about the deflater. Gripes he only seems to hold under this administration, even though the system is the same as previous ones.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether that calculation is correct or not. I really don't understand why you seem fixated on that.
 
Which is utterly irrelevant.
Or did you miss the bit where the sole reason for my posting about it was to ask BeAChooser why he only chose now to point out his perceived discrepancy.

My point, if you bother to look back, was not about you but about BeAChooser and his apparent gripes about the deflater. Gripes he only seems to hold under this administration, even though the system is the same as previous ones.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether that calculation is correct or not. I really don't understand why you seem fixated on that.
Because I addressed the one argue (not bolded) which might possibly be true?
 
Because I addressed the one argue (not bolded) which might possibly be true?

Eh?
BeAChooser raises some complaint about the US GDP figures, specifically the deflater figure used.

He makes out it is something specific to the current administration which, let's be honest, is not one he's particularly enamoured with.

I ask whether he complained about this in previous administrations who, after all, used the same methodology.

Where in any of that did I say that the deflater was necessarily correct?

Hence my question as to whether you have followed my argument at all...
 
A blog =/= a factual article. Let us know when you stop using bloggers' opinions and use actual facts.

Nice try. Sorry, but Glenn Kessler, the author of that blog article, is a veteran journalist on the National Desk at the Washington Post. Wickipedia says this about his career:

Kessler is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The Confidante: Condoleezza Rice and the Creation of the Bush Legacy. The book, which revealed new details on the making of Bush administration’s foreign policy, was described as “brilliantly reported” by the New York Times Book Review and generated news articles and reviews in two dozen countries around the world.[2]

Kessler's reporting played a role in two foreign policy controversies during the presidency of George W. Bush. He was called to testify in the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, in which he was questioned about a 2003 telephone conversation with Libby in which the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative, might have been discussed.[3] (Libby recalled they had discussed Plame; Kessler said they did not.[4]) Meanwhile, a 2004 telephone conversation between Kessler and Steve J. Rosen, a senior official at American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), was at the core of the AIPAC leaking case.[5] The federal government recorded the call and made it the centerpiece of its 2005 indictment of Rosen and an alleged co-conspirator; the charges were dropped in 2009.

The Wall Street Journal called Kessler "one of the most aggressive journalists on the State Department beat."[6] Kessler, a specialist on nuclear proliferation (especially in Iran and North Korea) and the Middle East, wrote the first article on the North Korea nuclear facility being built in Syria that was destroyed by Israeli jets.[7] He was immediately attacked for spreading neoconservative propaganda [8] but his reporting turned out to be correct and apologies were later offered.[9] In a lengthy article, Kessler also revealed the Bush administration's internal decision-making that led to the Iraq war.[10] He traveled with three different Secretaries of State -- Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Rodham Clinton -- and for several years wrote a blog about his experiences on those trips.[11] An article he wrote on apparent tensions between Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a 2006 trip to Iraq[12] was later denounced by Rumsfeld as "just fairly typical Washington Post stuff."[13]

Kessler joined The Washington Post in 1998 as the national business editor and later served as economic policy reporter. Kessler also was a reporter with Newsday for eleven years, covering the White House, politics, the United States Congress, airline safety and Wall Street. His investigative articles on airline safety led to the indictments of airline executives and federal officials for fraud, prompted congressional hearings into safety issues and spurred the federal government to impose new safety rules for DC-9 jets and begin regular inspections of foreign airlines. He won the Premier Award from the Aviation Space Writers Association and the investigative reporting award from the Society of the Silurians.

At Newsday, Kessler shared in two Pulitzer Prizes given for spot news reporting.

He's written many, many, many articles over the years: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/glenn+kessler/ . He currently writes the Fact Checker articles for the Washington Post (so one would think he'd have some credibility when it comes to facts). He's allowed to post on the Washington Post blog with their permission.

So for you to simply dismiss his article says more about you and your fear of the truth than anything else. :D
 
Eh?
BeAChooser raises some complaint about the US GDP figures, specifically the deflater figure used.

He makes out it is something specific to the current administration which, let's be honest, is not one he's particularly enamoured with.

I ask whether he complained about this in previous administrations who, after all, used the same methodology...

Believe me, I got it. But using your logic, if someone complained about something in the present under the present administration, but did not complain about it under the prior administration, then someone is biased, disreputable, and ....well whatever...

SO.....

That Libyan war under Bush sure was something, wasn't it?
:rolleyes:
 
Believe me, I got it. But using your logic, if someone complained about something in the present under the present administration, but did not complain about it under the prior administration, then someone is biased, disreputable, and ....well whatever...

SO.....

That Libyan war under Bush sure was something, wasn't it?
:rolleyes:

Um no.
Because (unless I missed something) Bush did not order a war against Libya, so there is absolutely no comparison there.

Whereas he did use GDP figures produced using the same methodology that BeAChooser is currently complaining about.

Are you really this dim, or is this some sort of performance art?
 
the skeptics "always win" when it comes to shilling foreign policy but fail trying to defend the economy
 
Um no.
Because (unless I missed something) Bush did not order a war against Libya, so there is absolutely no comparison there.....
Given that Obama did not order a war against Libya, yes, there is a comparison.

..whereas he did use GDP figures produced using the same methodology that BeAChooser is currently complaining about.

Are you really this dim, or is this some sort of performance art?

This question may be answered after the following explanation, which I actually thought would be quite obvious.


  • There were no issues requiring examination of GDP (EG great recession) during Bush, and there was no military action in Libya.
  • There was an issue requiring examination of GDP during Obama, and there was military action in Libya.

Clearly the question you have posed "why did BAC not complain during the former POTUS's term" can only be a valid question in the existence of a similar problem at that time for which a complaint was possible. There wasn't, so your comment has no meaning, although it's purpose is clear.

By way of analogy, I asked an equally silly question as yours.

That Libyan war under Bush sure was something, wasn't it?

Thus it would seem that since I only replicate your logic, we now replicate your question, and address it to you:

Are you really this dim, or is this some sort of performance art?
 
So community organizer, lawyer, professor, those aren't real jobs?
......
No, actually they don't seem to be.

There is evidence that what he acually did as a "community organizer" was write a few briefs for cases against banks, alleging discrimination. Some of the "acorn cons" that have been documented.

The "lawyer", well generally for a lawyer, you can point to actual work performed, cases handled, court documents with the attorney's signature. Seems to be rather sketchy in this case.

The "professor" is inaccurate, he was a lecturer, I believe part time. I've done exactly that, and I would never call myself "Professor" for having done so.

I'm not saying that it is not possible for someone to be a "community organizer" and perform tasks representative of a "real job".

There's simply an absence of evidence that anything similar to a real job was done. Of course any of these points you can argue, nitpick the definitions and so forth.

Just saying.
 
Given that Obama did not order a war against Libya, yes, there is a comparison.

Very funny.

This question may be answered after the following explanation, which I actually thought would be quite obvious.


  • There were no issues requiring examination of GDP (EG great recession) during Bush, and there was no military action in Libya.
  • There was an issue requiring examination of GDP during Obama, and there was military action in Libya.

Clearly the question you have posed "why did BAC not complain during the former POTUS's term" can only be a valid question in the existence of a similar problem at that time for which a complaint was possible. There wasn't, so your comment has no meaning, although it's purpose is clear.

Nope. Doesn't work that way.
The same methodology was in use.
If that methodology, which the implications are that it is designed to inflate GDP figures, is suspect, then it was suspect 5 years ago. So why no complaint 5 years ago that the GDP figures were bollocks?

I know why...and so do you.

As for my purpose being clear, I should hope so. It's to show BeAChoosers extreme partisanship. Nothing more.

By way of analogy, I asked an equally silly question as yours.

That Libyan war under Bush sure was something, wasn't it?

Thus it would seem that since I only replicate your logic, we now replicate your question, and address it to you:

Are you really this dim, or is this some sort of performance art?

Again. There was no conflict, or intervention, involving Libya under Bush. Again, utterly bollocks analogy.
 
Nope. Doesn't work that way.
The same methodology was in use.
If that methodology, which the implications are that it is designed to inflate GDP figures, is suspect, then it was suspect 5 years ago. So why no complaint 5 years ago that the GDP figures were bollocks?

The same reason mhaze complains about the CPI changes made in 1992 when the really significant chances were made in 1983.
 
Very funny.



Nope. Doesn't work that way.
The same methodology was in use.
If that methodology, which the implications are that it is designed to inflate GDP figures, is suspect, then it was suspect 5 years ago. So why no complaint 5 years ago that the GDP figures were bollocks?

I know why...and so do you.

As for my purpose being clear, I should hope so. It's to show BeAChoosers extreme partisanship.

It's okay if you want to ignore the facts, and stand firm on that thin reed of argument. I only thought it worthwhile to point out that there wasn't any crisis for which BAC or his supposed team of lackeys would have criticized GDP 5 years again. That's the simple reason that there were "no complaints 5 years ago".

:)
 
As for my purpose being clear, I should hope so. It's to show BeAChoosers extreme partisanship. Nothing more.
To whom? mhaze is as much a partisan hack as BaC is... Everyone else pretty much already knows BaC is a partisan hack...as evidenced by his habit of using blogs as primary sources.
 
The same reason mhaze complains about the CPI changes made in 1992 when the really significant chances were made in 1983.
False.

The complaint is about two methods of computation (or more) presented as the same data series, which is intellectually dishonest.

Oranges and apples....

However, I am not even complaining per se, because by going to shadowstats.com, this problem is eliminated.
 
The complaint is about two methods of computation (or more) presented as the same data series, which is intellectually dishonest.

Oranges and apples....

Since no one other then you is making comparisons to pre-1983 that’s a moot point. Furthermore every time you reference your supposed “real” numbers via shadowstats you are implicitly comparing them to recent numbers which are not generated using the same methodology shadowstats is using, so you and only you are making apples to oranges comparisons and you are making them on a regular basis.
 
Since no one other then you is making comparisons to pre-1983 that’s a moot point. Furthermore every time you reference your supposed “real” numbers via shadowstats you are implicitly comparing them to recent numbers which are not generated using the same methodology shadowstats is using, so you and only you are making apples to oranges comparisons and you are making them on a regular basis.

I have NO CLUE what that piece of word salad means.

But I will ask this.

What problem, exactly, do you have with Williams computing the pre clinton style CPI and publishing it so as to continue that data series to the present day?

I don't understand who, and why, someone would think of that other than as a useful tool in the box.
 
What problem, exactly, do you have with Williams computing the pre clinton style CPI and publishing it so as to continue that data series to the present day?

He uses the Pre-Reagan definition, and it's an apples to oranges comparison because numbers generated using a methodology that it outdated and out fo use for 30 years provides no relavent context.
 
He uses the Pre-Reagan definition, and it's an apples to oranges comparison because numbers generated using a methodology that it outdated and out fo use for 30 years provides no relavent context.
You mean that's one of many things he does.

So like I suspected, you don't know what you are talking about.
 
Everyone else pretty much already knows BaC is a partisan hack...as evidenced by his habit of using blogs as primary sources.

LOL! You certainly haven't made any attempt to address the substance of the arguments I've brought to the thread. You just negated the article I posted out of hand because it was published on something called a blog. Never mind that it's a blog hosted by the Washington Post. And never mind that the author of the article is an employee of the Washington Post and by all accounts a very respected and experienced reporter. I addressed that issue in post #1665 and you failed to respond, proving, I think, who really is the "partisan hack" around here, BTD. That would be YOU. :p
 

Back
Top Bottom